Murray and Another v Foyle Meats Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD IRVINE OF LAIRG L.C.,LORD JAUNCEY OF TULLICHETTLE,LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY,LORD HOFFMANN,LORD CLYDE
Judgment Date08 July 1999
Judgment citation (vLex)[1999] UKHL J0708-1
Date08 July 1999
CourtHouse of Lords
Murray

and Another (A.P.)

(Appellants)
and
Foyle Meats Limited
(Respondents)

(Northern Ireland)

[1999] UKHL J0708-1

Lord Chancellor

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Lord Slynn of Hadley

Lord Hoffmann

Lord Clyde

HOUSE OF LORDS

LORD IRVINE OF LAIRG L.C.

My Lords,

1

Foyle Meats Limited ("the company") carry on business as slaughterers in Londonderry. They employed Mr. Murray and Mr. Doherty as "meat plant operatives." Both normally worked in the company's slaughter hall, but they could under their contracts of employment be required to work elsewhere and occasionally did so. Employees who worked in other parts of the factory, such as the boning hall or the loading bay, were engaged on similar terms.

2

In 1995 there was a decline in business and the company decided to reduce the number of "killing lines" in the slaughter hall from two to one. This meant that fewer employees were required in the hall. The company informed the union representing the workers that it proposed to make about 35 employees redundant. In consultation with the union, it formulated criteria for deciding which of the employees in the slaughter hall should be dismissed. Mr. Murray and Mr. Doherty were selected for redundancy and dismissed on 27 March 1995.

3

Both made a complaint of unfair dismissal to an Industrial Tribunal. By Article 22(1) of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 ( S.I. 1976 No. 1043) it is for the employer to show what was the reason for the dismissal and that it was a reason falling within Article 22(2). The company justified the dismissals on the grounds that they were for the reason contained in Article 22(2)(c), namely "that the employee was redundant." Article 2(7) of the Order incorporates the definition of redundancy in section 11(2) of the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965:

"For the purposes of this Act an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to -

(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed; or

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed, have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish."

4

The company relied on paragraph (b). It said that the dismissal was wholly attributable to the fact that the requirements of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, namely, on the slaughtering line, had diminished. The Industrial Tribunal and, on an appeal by way of case stated, the Court of Appeal accepted this submission. Mr. Doherty and Mr. Murray appeal to your Lordships' House.

5

The appellants say the company chose to engage all its employees on similar terms. "Requirements for employees to carry out work of a particular kind" meant "requirements for employees contractually engaged to carry out work of a particular kind." In this respect, no distinction could be made between those who worked in the slaughter hall and those who worked elsewhere. It is therefore wrong of the company to select for redundancy solely from those who normally worked in the slaughter hall. It should have selected from everyone working under the same contract of employment.

6

My Lords, the language of paragraph (b) is in my view simplicity itself. It asks two questions of fact. The first is whether one or other of various states of economic affairs exists. In this case, the relevant one is whether the requirements of the business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind have diminished. The second question is whether the dismissal is attributable, wholly or mainly, to that state of affairs. This is a question of causation. In the present case, the Tribunal found as a fact that the requirements of the business for employees to work in the slaughter hall had diminished. Secondly, they found that that state of affairs had led to the appellants being dismissed. That, in my opinion, is the end of the matter.

7

This conclusion is in accordance with the analysis of the statutory provisions by Judge Peter Clark in Safeway Stores Plc. v. Burrell [1997] I.R.L.R. 200 and I need to say no more than that I entirely agree with his admirably clear reasoning and conclusions. But I should, out of respect for the submissions of Mr. Declan Morgan Q.C. for the appellants, say something about the earlier cases which may have encouraged a belief that the statute had a different meaning.

8

In Nelson v. British Broadcasting Corporation [1977] I.R.L.R. 148 Mr. Nelson was employed by the B.B.C. under a contract which required him to perform any duties to which he might be assigned. In fact he worked for the General Overseas Service broadcasting to the Caribbean. In 1974 the B.B.C. reduced its services to the Caribbean, as a result of which Mr. Nelson's services in that capacity were no longer required. When he refused alternative employment, he was dismissed on grounds of redundancy. The Industrial Tribunal concluded that he had been dismissed for redundancy, apparently on the grounds that a term could be implied into Mr. Nelson's contract of employment that he should carry out work on Caribbean programmes. The Court of Appeal rightly rejected the implication of such a term. But they went on to hold that Mr. Nelson was therefore not redundant. This was wrong. Whatever the terms of Mr. Nelson's contract, it was open to the Tribunal to find that he had been dismissed because the B.B.C.'s requirements for work on Caribbean programmes had diminished. This was a question of fact.

9

The basis for the fallacy is to be found in the judgment of Brandon L.J. in Nelson v. British Broadcasting Corporation (No. 2) [1979] I.R.L.R. 346, when Mr. Nelson's case came again before the Court of Appeal. He said (at p. 353) that Mr. Nelson had been right in law in maintaining that "because the work which he was employed to do continued to exist, he was not redundant." In saying this Brandon L.J. appears to have meant that because Mr. Nelson was employed to do any work to which he might be assigned with the B.B.C. and because the B.B.C. was still carrying on business, he could not be redundant. In my opinion this cannot be right. The fact was that the B.B.C.'s requirements for employees in the General Overseas Service in general and for Caribbean broadcasts in particular had diminished. It must therefore have been open to the Tribunal to decide that Mr. Nelson's dismissal was attributable to that state of affairs. Of course, the B.B.C. did not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Shawkat v Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust (No 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 Junio 2001
    ...by Peter Gibson LJ on the basis that the argument on behalf of Dr. Shawkat received some support in the remarks of Lord Clyde in Murray v. Foyle Meats Ltd [1999] I.C.R. 827, 833C and in the commentary in the leading text book, Harvey on Industrial Relations section E, paras. 725–732 Facts 2......
  • Far East Holdings Bhd and Another v Majlis Ugama Islam dan Adat Resam Melayu Pahang (and 2 Other Appeals)
    • Malaysia
    • Federal Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Mr S Grimsley v Centrex Maintenance Ltd: 2302390/2018
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Tribunal
    • 2 Enero 2019
    ...to carry out work of a particular kind have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish. 14. In Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd [1999] ICR 827, Lord Irvine approved of the ruling in Safeway Stores plc v Burrell [1997] ICR 523 and held that section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 199......
  • Mr H Lee v Institute of Directors: 2200341/2019
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Tribunal
    • 27 Enero 2021
    ...whether the dismissal is “wholly or mainly attributable” to that state of affairs. The House of Lords in Murray and ors v Foyle Meats Ltd [2000] 1 AC 51 made clear that these are questions of fact for us as a 183. Then we have to consider whether the dismissal is fair in all the circumstanc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Legal aspects of employment change and their implications for management
    • United States
    • Industrial Relations Journal No. 32-1, March 2001
    • 1 Marzo 2001
    ...AC 539.Milligan v Securicor Cleaning 1995 [1995] IRLR 288.Murco Petroleum v Forge 1987 [1987] IRLR 50.Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd 1999 [1999] ICR 827.Ny Molle Kro 1989 [1989] IRLR 37.Legal aspects of employment change 83Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2 P Bork 1989 [1989] IRLR 41.Piggott v Jackson ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT